Agenda and minutes

There were no declarations of interest on this occasion.

To agree the minutes of the last meeting held on 1 August 2017 as a true and correct record.

The Committee considered the minutes of the meeting held on 1 August 2017.

Resolved:

That the minutes of the meeting held on 1 August 2017 be approved and signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

The Planning Committee considered the planning and enforcement appeals lodged since the last meeting. It noted that three appeals had been lodged against the refusal of planning permission in respect of 23 Colwyn Avenue, Land to the rear of 17-23 Carleton Avenue and Unit 1, 71 Moor Avenue.

Resolved:

To note the report  on planning appeals lodged and determined.

Background papers:  None

The Committee will be asked to note the outcomes of the cases and support the actions of the Service Manager – Public Protection.

The Committee considered a report detailing the planning enforcement activity undertaken within Blackpool during July 2017.

The report stated that 71 new cases had been registered for investigation, six cases had been resolved by negotiation without recourse to formal action and 49 cases were closed as there was either no breach of planning control found, no action was appropriate or it was not considered expedient to take action.  One Community Protection Notice had been issued during the same period.

The report also provided comparative information for the same period last year.

Resolved:  To note the outcome of the cases set out in the report and to support the actions of the Service Manager, Public Protection Department, in authorising the notices.

Background papers:  None

To update Members of the Planning Committee of the Council’s performance in relation to Government targets.

Mr Johnston, Head of Development Management reported on the Council’s performance in relation to the determination of planning applications and planning appeals for the month of July and the quarter period from April to June 2017. He advised Members that performance remained above the target thresholds set by Government.

Resolved:  To note the report on planning applications and appeals performance.

Background papers:  None

The Committee to consider approval of the Conservation Area Guidance.

The Committee considered a report on draft Conservation Area Guidance presented by Mr Carl Carrington, Head of Planning Quality and Control. Mr Carrington advised that with the growth in the number of Conservation Areas and the Council’s Channel Shift Initiative it had been considered useful to develop a clear guide which homeowners could use to inform themselves in making decisions as regards changes or developments within the Conservation Area. The document did not by itself create guidance but instead presented the relevant information in an easy to use format for applicants and interested parties. Members of the Planning Committee endorsed the creation of the guidance as a positive way to assist members of the public in making informed decisions.

Resolved:

To approve the Conservation Area Guidance.

The Committee is requested to consider an application for planning permission, details of which are set out in the accompanying report.

The Committee noted information from Mr Johnston, Head of Development Management that a number of objectors had not been correctly notified of the Committee date.

Resolved:

That the application be deferred to the next meeting of the Committee.

Background papers:  Applications, plans and replies to consultations on the application.

The Committee is requested to consider an application for planning permission, details of which are set out in the accompanying report.

The Planning Committee considered planning application 17/0301 for the eection of four detached dwellinghouses, two with integral garages and two with detached garages, with associated landscaping and access from Stockydale Road at Land adjacent to 27 Stockydale Road.

Mrs C Baron spoke in objection to the application and highlighted local residents’ concerns regarding access to the properties and road safety.

Mr K Gleeson, Applicant’s Agent, spoke in support or application, he highlighted that the applicant had been unable to develop the site with access from Midgeland Road, as previously approved, and proposed this application as a  solution to allow a phased development of the site. Mr Gleeson explained that the applicant had sought to ameliorate the access to the site following discussions

In response to questions from the Committee Mr Patel, Group Engineer Highways, explained while for highways purposes a development of site from Midgeland Road would always be preferable that the applicant had taken steps to improve access to the site as far as was practicable.

The Planning Committee considered on balance that the access to the development site would be inadequate and would exacerbate existing issues of pedestrian and vehicular conflict, it would be detrimental to highway safety. It therefore concluded that the granting planning permission would unacceptably undermine road safety and highways amenity in the locality and this could not be dealt with by adding conditions and only by refusing the application.

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the reasons set out in the Appendix to the minutes.

Background papers:  Applications, plans and replies to consultations on the application.

The Committee is requested to consider an application for planning permission, details of which are set out in the accompanying report.

The Planning Committee considered Planning Application 17/0340 for the erection of part single / part two storey side/rear extension following demolition of existing conservatory at 44 Stonyhill Avenue.

The Committee expressed serious reservations as to the size and overintensity of the proposed extension and concluded that on balance that the proposed extension would be out of keeping with the streetscene and would significantly overshadow the property and its neighbour at 42 Stony Hill Avenue by reason of its height and proximity to the boundary of the property. The Committee further expressed concern as to the loss of parking spaces on the site and access to the garage.

Resolved:

That the application be refused for the reasons set out in Appendix to the minutes.

Background papers:  Applications, plans and replies to consultations on the application.

The Committee is requested to consider an application for planning permission, details of which are set out in the accompanying report.

The Planning Committee considered application 17/0349 for the erection of part three storey, part four storey building to form 12 self-contained permanent flats, with associated parking for eight cars, access from Bispham Road, bin and cycle stores, landscaping and boundary treatment  at 50 Bispham Road

Mr Mark Shaw, Principal Planning Officer, highlighted that planning permission had been granted to a number of occasions for similar developments on the site which was accessible and linked well to public transport in the area. In response to questions from the Committee Mr Shaw explained that it was his belief from discussions with the applicant that the applicant was in a position to start quickly on site if permission was granted.

Resolved:

That the application be granted subject to the conditions outlined in the Appendix to the minutes.

Background papers:  Applications, plans and replies to consultations on the application.

The Committee is requested to consider an application for planning permission, details of which are set out in the accompanying report.

The Planning Committee considered Planning Application 17/0443 for the use of first floor as a beauty therapy centre at 340 Waterloo Road.

Mr J Shaw and Mrs P Ferguson, public objectors, both spoke in objection to the application and highlighted local concerns regarding parking in the area.

Mr Johnston, Head of Development Management, highlighted that the applicant had explained that they were willing to enter into an agreement with the owner of the former Methodist Church to lease car parking which would reduce the demand for on-street car parking created by the change of use.

The Committee considered that without the completion of a suitable agreement to ensure that parking was available off site for staff and customers that the change of use would add unacceptably to the parking issues being experienced already in the area. It therefore concluded that the application should be granted but only subject to the signing of a suitable legal agreement regarding the provision of off street car parking for at least 8 cars.

Resolved:

That the committee are minded to approve the application subject to suitable resolution of the concerns about parking and that approval be delegated to the Head of Development Management subject to the completion of a suitable Section 106 agreement mandating that the use not commence until the provision of suitable off-street car parking had been secured .

 Background papers:  Applications, plans and replies to consultations on the application